The state of the Gulf of Finland- gaps in our present knowledge

Juha-Markku LeppänenMarine Research Centre

SYKE

Marine Science for the SocietyTuesday 21 January, Helsinki City Hall, 10.00–12.30

Healthy Baltic Sea

Content• State of the Baltic Sea as assessed by HELCOM• Our obligations to protect the GOF• What do we know about the environmental status of the marine

environment and the pressures to affect it? • Dream of the healthy Baltic Sea in practice• What is good status?• What is needed to assess the status?• What did we report for the EU MSFD?• Gaps in information and knowledge based on the results of the EU-

funded GES-REG Project• Level of coordination• Possibilities during the GOF Year

State of the Gulf of Finland

“Status of the Gulf on Finland” 244,000 0.22 s“State of the Gulf of Finland” 156,000 0.15 s“Environment of the Gulf of Finland” 98,000 0.23 s

Obligations

• Helsinki Convention• protect the marine environment of the Baltic Sea from all sources of

pollution through intergovernmental cooperation

– HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan• Political commitment by all Contracting Parties

• EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive• Legally binding for all EU Member State

• Maritime Doctrine of Russian Federation 2020• Legal document in Russia• Development and conservation of ocean resources• Integrated marine scientific research • Development of systems for monitoring the marine environment and

coastal areas

What do we know?HELCOM Assessments

State of the Baltic SeaEutrophication Hazardous substances

Biodiversity Ecosystem Health

Eutrophication

HEAT

CHASE

BEAT

Defining goodstatus

Assessingactualstatus

Monitoringenvironment

and pressures

Executingmeasures

Research and

scientific advice

Dream of the healthy Baltic Sea in practice

What is “good status”

A healthy Baltic Sea environment, with diverse biological components functioning in balance, resulting in a good ecological status and supporting a wide range of sustainable human economic and sustainable activities.

EUTROPHICATION• Concentrations of nutrients close to natural

levels• Clear water• Natural level of algal blooms• Natural distribution and occurrence of plants

and animals• Natural oxygen levels

HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES• Concentrations of hazardous substances close

to natural levels• All fish are safe to eat• Healthy wildlife• Radioactivity at the pre-Chernobyl level

BIODIVERSITY• Natural marine and coastal landscapes• Thriving and balanced communities of plants

and animals• Viable populations of species

MARITIME ACTIVITIES• Enforcement of international regulations – no

illegal discharges• Safe maritime traffic without accidental

pollution• Efficient emergency and response capabilities• Minimum sewage pollution from ships• No introductions of alien species from ships• Minimum air pollution from ships• Zero discharges from offshore platforms• Minimum threats from offshore installations

Good Environmental Status of marine waters provide ecologically diverse and dynamic oceans and seas which are clean, healthy and productive within their intrinsic

conditions, and the use of the marine environment is at a level that is sustainable, thus safeguarding the

potential for uses and activities bycurrent and future generations

Biological diversity is maintained

Non-indigenous species do not adversely alter the ecosystems

Populations of all commercially exploited fish and shellfish are within safe biological limits

All elements of the marine food webs occur at normal abundance and diversity

Human-induced eutrophication is minimised

Sea-floor integrity not adversely affected

Permanent alteration of hydrographical conditions does not adversely affect marine ecosystems

Concentrations of contaminants are at levels not giving rise to pollution effects

Contaminants in fish and other seafood for human consumption do not exceed legislative levels

Marine litter do not cause harm

Underwater noise does not adversely affect the marine environment

HELCOM BSAP and MSFD

What is needed?

• Co-ordination:– Criteria for GES– Indicators– Boundary values– Assessment tools– Methods– Monitoring– Data

What did we report?

Different indicatorsDifferent GES boundariesDifferent geographic scalesDifferent assessment methods

Biodiversity

Aliens

Fish

Food webs

Eutrophication

Benthic integrity

Hydrography

Litter

Contaminants

Contaminants in fish

Noise

Gaps

State of regional coherence – self-assessment by HELCOM Contracting Parties concerning implementation of

Articles 8, 9 and 10 of the MSFD

Green: good regional coherence, requiring further development though. Yellow: fair coherence. Red: limited knowledge and insufficient coherence.

Gaps in information and knowledge

• Major knowledge gaps concerning – hydromorphology, underwater noise and marine litter– impacts of alien species – underwater habitat distribution and status – indicators for the food web status

• Knowledge on the hazardous substances is spatially patchy and especially their biological impacts are poorly understood

• Set of indicators to assess GES is sparse and varies• Geographic assessment scales are varying• Assessment tools are neither fully developed nor agreed

upon and still require more coherence with EU policies

Level of coordination• No real coordination for the 2012 reporting on the MSFD

implementation • HELCOM was not used efficiently• General information exchange on Initial Assessments, determination

of GES and GES/sub-GES boundaries, setting of environmental targets and establishing indicators for assessment took place

• GES-REG Project provisions were not used fully– Practically no general coordination took place in the actual preparation of

the Initial Assessments – GES determination was not coordinated– HELCOM CORESET was not used efficiently for indicators and boundary

settings– Joint HELCOM Assessment and Monitoring Strategy was a success

Possibilities during the GOF Year• Increased sub-regional cooperation

between Estonia, Finland and Russia– planning of joint monitoring manual

and programme– implementing operational monitoring

• Co-ordinated, well planned execution of monitoring (GES and pressures)

• making “new methods” operational• Sharing/pooling data without

unnecessary delay • joint preparation of assessment on

environmental status and pressures

– coordinated programme of measures

Use HELCOM!

• Align national approaches to regional agreements accordingly and vice versa– Coordinated and timely planning of activities

• Influence and support the HELCOM’s role in the regional cooperation process and achieve profits

• Share research and development work on new GOF Year topics in order to – Support Baltic-wide planning and execution of operational monitoring– provide regional baseline information for assessment of the need and extent

of future activities • Influence the joint documentation of approaches and results to support

HELCOM Contracting Parties in their national and international reporting obligations